What's this? IPCC scientists questioning their own science?

Question

We all knew this was going to happen.... Yet the government of Australia has already embarked on a plan of a 60 percent reduction in greenhouse gases?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23545661-7583,00.html

Answer 1

When the empirical evidence is stacked against you, you have to change you stance in order to save your reputation.  As the earth starts to cool I suspect you will see more and more scientists doing the same.

People on this board have tried to downplay the significance of the event by saying it has nothing to do about the planet heating up.  But whenever we argue that the costs of cutting back on co2 is too high, they counter argue that the costs of doing nothing is greater.  But they are making the assumptions that hurricanes like Katrina will become the norm. And these are cost analysis based on Kyoto targets, not the 60% reduction many governments are saying we must now take.  So now that the evidence is saying hurricanes will not be the norm, why should we cut back on costly co2 emissions?

Answer 2

I assume by your "Funny" comment to Bob you are claiming the story in your link is fact "the Australian?" if you had looked at the link more closely you would have seen it is an "opinion piece" not a report, by a retired economist, Des Moore.

Another thing mentioned in the link,

"Also pertinent is the recent report by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change concluding that natural causes are likely to be the dominant cause of global warming"

The "Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change" is the work of Fred Singer, Grand Father of the denier movement, which is probably why the piece didn't mention him by name. The link below shows the same old trick as with the Oregon petition many of those listed as Engineers, Chemists and Economists.

Facts indeed!

Actually it is probably good that things like this keep getting posted as it is so easy to see through if you bother to do even a small Google search

Thanks Cindy.

Answer 3

Cindy - thanks for pointing out either your serious lack of critical thinking or plain dishonesty.

""Also pertinent is the recent report by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change concluding that natural causes are likely to be the dominant cause of global warming, signed by 23 experts, including two highly qualified Australian scientists."

IPCC's OWN REPORT Bob..... Come on!!!!!"

That was not from the IPCC report. It was from the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NGIPCC). The pathetic skeptic get-together in New York last March, and hosted by the equally pathetic heartland institute.

Answer 4

"Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change"

hmmm.

'23 individuals from 15 countries, including a handful of scientists,.... led by physicist S. Fred Singer—best known for his denial of the dangers of secondhand smoke.'

Even Skeptics Admit Global Warming is Real [Video]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=even...

Answer 5

2 aussy scientists signed it. i now believe you .

hasn't GW been disproven (according to you) every since you got on YA?

Answer 6

The report you linked to simply cites a few skeptics.  There are plenty of those, mainly working for the oil companies.  The IPCC hasn't changed anything.  Read before you write.

Answer 7

The third assessment of the IPCC climate change study has been called the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history.

And you think the skeptics have more evidence?

  It is supported by tens of thousands of scientists from 120 countries.  

Dr. James Baker - NOAA

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics".  

I advise anyone, who is interested in the truth, to go to the following site to see the overwhelming support by climate scientists for the IPCC findings, and to learn how few real climate scientists are skeptics.  You will also learn how many supposed skeptics don't have the scientific credentials to be authorities.  And you will learn how many are bribed by the $1000 offer for speeches and $10,000 offer for anti AGW papers, by the Heartland Institute and AEI, two propaganda mills of the oil industry.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...

"The big difference I have with the doubters is they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate, whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show the reports dramatically understate the impact."

"One of the most serious results of the overuse of the term "consensus" in the public discussion of global warming is that it creates a simple strategy for doubters to confuse the public, the press and politicians: Simply come up with as long a list as you can of scientists who dispute the theory. After all, such disagreement is prima facie proof that no consensus of opinion exists."

"So we end up with the absurd but pointless spectacle of the leading denier in the U.S. Senate, James Inhofe, R-Okla., who recently put out a list of more than 400 names of supposedly "prominent scientists" who supposedly "recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming."

"As it turned out, the list is both padded and laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren't climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a number of people who actually believe in the consensus."

"But in any case, nothing could be more irrelevant to climate science than the opinion of people on the list such as Weather Channel founder John Coleman or famed inventor Ray Kurzweil (who actually does "think global warming is real"). Or, for that matter, my opinion -- even though I researched a Ph.D. thesis at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on physical oceanography in the Greenland Sea."

"What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0... The Cold Truth about Global Warming by Joseph Romm

"Scientific skepticism is a healthy thing. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge, improve their understanding and refine their theories. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog, study or 15 year old that refutes AGW"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

------

http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/...

"Honest skeptics persist at trying to convince their colleagues of alternative conclusions, and they do it by submitting their manuscripts for publication. If they do not get published, then it is because their data, their arguments, their assumptions, and their conclusions did not stand up to careful scrutiny, not because reviewers were predisposed to a different opinion. Oh sure, some reviewers can be opinionated and have their own political ax to grind, but with persistence, you can find enough fair academics to get any legitimate conclusion published. My years as a journal editor, as a reviewer, and as an author of scientific articles validates my position that most academics will give a valid minority position a fair evaluation."

--------

"Global warming, as a scientific issue, remains unresolved, and because of its complexity much conflicting and marginal data exists. But the conclusions reached by Robinson et al., upon which The Wall Street Journal news item was based, in my opinion and that of my class, cannot stand the scrutiny of objective peer-review. Our judgement notwithstanding, The Wall Street Journal presented an unpublished manuscript as actual science to a gullible business world. Giving support and credence to an unpublished manuscript certainly reflects poorly on The Wall Street Journal and its standards of reporting and objectivity. We know The Wall Street Journal’s science reporting cannot be trusted if they don't know the difference between opinion and science, or worse, if they do know the difference, then they're just dishonest."

http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/...

--------------

"And please don't forget that anthropogenic global warming has been for a centruy the underdog theory, it is only very recently that the mountains of research have dragged a generally conservative scientific community inexorably to a very unpleasant conclusion"

from  http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10...

skeptic argument: there is no consensus

"People that say this often have little or no grasp of the science and are using denial to avoid having to face a danger. Fix the denial mechanism by showing them this list of sustainable/green technologies. Then make them read this consensus and say the following quote out loud: "I don't know anything about science, so given the choice of trusting 99.9% or 0.1% of the experts, I'll go with the 0.1%". If still they don't think that sounds silly and they don't start to ask questions then you are wasting your time trying to educate them. This ratio is correct because there are 12,301-14,305 members of the AGU and who knows how many European experts on climate. As Eli Rabbet says "if you ain't a member of the AGU you ain't no d**n climate scientist in the US, just like the AMA". Also keep in mind that with the tens of thousand of climate change skeptics on the planet if only %1 of them are corrupted by the $10,000 payment (or bribe) currently being offered by Exxon through AEI then you will have at minimum 200 skeptics/deniers. So far 200 skeptics/deniers have not turned up."

Gaby -  as time goes by, actually more and more scientists agree with the IPCC report.  Where on earth did you get the opposite idea.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...

This site shows the overwhelming support for the IPCC findings, and how that support is continually growing.

Answer 8

I also find it very interesting that as time goes by, more and more scientists are questioning the IPCC theory.

I am not convinced one way or the other. The temperature data used is full of proved / possible errors, and the theory concluded by the IPCC is just based on ratio and proportion of CO2 to Temperature data.

I am amazed there isn't many more scientists questioning the data and conclusion.

Answer 9

That is the very danger of the AGW theory, all this rush to action when they still aren't sure where they are rushing to or the exact reasons why. These are actual dollars of lost production we are talking about, not just some abstract intellectual discussion.

I think one reason they feel the need to rush into action and start the process of diminishing economic returns is that they know deep down that when everybody understands the true scope of the scam their opportunity to act will come to a close.

Political groups are trying to grab greater power over our standard of living, given the chance they will take from the haves to give to the have nots and at the same time either intentional or not, make sure all classes have less, all over an unproven theory popular among the elitists.

Answer 10

No.

The report you cite has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE IPCC "QUESTIONING THEIR OWN WORK'.  It simply cites a few "skeptics".  And the author, a former Treasury secretary, presumably an economist, makes a number of assertions with no real scientific backup.

At least as many scientists think the IPCC is too timid.

"Of course, being a consensus document, a lot of the material that I think is reasonably well-supported also gets weeded out through that process. If the IPCC says it you better believe it and then leave room to think it is actually a lot worse than they have said."

Tim Flannery

There are a very few scientific "skeptics".  But the government of Australia properly feels it wrong to bet the future well being of the country on the very long shot (100:1 against?) that they're right, and that EVERY major scientific organization is wrong.  Note that that includes the National Academy of Sciences, the American Chemical Society, and the American Institute of Physics, few of whose members get funding for global warming research.

EDIT - I don't know what he's referring to, but it's NOT an IPCC report.  THE IPCC IS THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE.  The fact that he's trying to confuse people about that is telling.  As is the fact he succeeded.  Bet this question gets taken down by the asker.

Answer 11

The "Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change" is NOT the same as the IPCC. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is a rather pathetic ploy to confuse people.

Answer 12

I feel I should point out, since you seem blissfully unaware, that the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change isn't affiliated with the real IPCC in any way. It's a denialist think tank run by Fred Singer, the report was published by the Heartland Institute. In other words, it's nothing any reasonably intelligent person should take seriously.

As to your article, meh. It's just another rehashing of the same denialist garbage we've been over dozens of times before. Nothing worthwhile in it at all.